LETTER: Cahill offered county reasonable trade-off

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Dear Editor:

What ever happened to analysis and to the desire to look beyond the obvious in search for a truer understanding of an issue?

I have read the newspapers assessments of the debate between Assemblyman Kevin Cahill and Ulster County Executive Michael Hines over the 1 percent additional sales tax authorization for Ulster County that has been in place for a number of years. Since this additional tax has been approved for some years previously, why the complaint now by Cahill?

Here’s where the reporters and editors fell short; they did not ask or answer that question. I cannot speak for Assemblyman Cahill who can certainly speak quite well for himself, but I can make note of concerns he expressed when the tax was first requested previously. A decade or more ago, the point Cahill made was that this is a regressive tax and he was in favor of progressive taxes instead. Those who can afford to pay more, he said, should.

From the start, Cahill argued if a regressive sales tax is necessary, then the benefits must be shared by those it burdens the most. Regressive taxes ought to have progressive benefits. So, as I understand it, Cahill tied the continuation of this regressive tax to the guarantee by Ulster County administration that it would assume the welfare costs of the towns and the costs the towns incurred in running elections. A reasonable trade-off, I believe.

Kevin Cahill has been an outstanding representative. It is time we rallied behind him in support of the citizens of Ulster County and the state of New York. We’re fortunate to have an exceptional public official working on our behalf.